Comment: Ford's campaign mantra runs out of gas

Rob Ford’s campaign narrative was almost out of gas heading into this week. And judging by the first two instalments of a spending review meant to find ways for Toronto to solve a massive budget shortfall, this car is almost ready for the scrap yard. It’s the burnt-out rental Dodge from Planes, Trains and Automobiles, with three-quarters of a bumper sticker reading “Respect for Taxp.”

Mr. Ford swore that the core services review reports, prepared by the firm KPMG, would find “at least $50- or $100-million” in savings, else their authors wouldn’t receive “one red cent” in compensation. Yet they largely vindicate his opponents’ stance: We know what the city does. We don’t need to pay consultants big bucks to tell us. Most of what the city does is either essential, provincially mandated or both — 96% of the services covered by Monday’s and Tuesday’s reports. (There are six more reports to come.)

And those services are delivered pretty decently, according to the reports. They don’t even suggest what efficiencies might be found — the mythical gravy — because that’s not what KPMG was commissioned to do.

That City Hall wastes some money is as obvious as it ever was. The question remains how much. We were promised enough to significantly ameliorate the nearly $800-million budget shortfall. We’re still waiting.

And we were promised it wouldn’t impact services. Now we know it will.

Look at KPMG’s cost-saving suggestions to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. It could opt to make the city dirtier (less street-sweeping), the streets more treacherous (less snow-plowing), and garbage collection more expensive (by taking away the four free garbage bag tags per year). In each of these cases, the “potential savings” level was assessed as “low” — no more than 5% of the costs of those particular programs. We might be talking about $10- or $15-million at the outside if all of the recommendations were implemented.

And they won’t all be. Count on it. If KPMG had assessed the potential citizen annoyance level of their proposals, it would likely have found it “extreme.” These are the sorts of things that provoked Ford Nation’s fury in the first place. Pay the same, or more, and get less? How could Mr. Ford possibly get behind that?

Admittedly, some useful, debatable suggestions have emerged thus far: Outsourcing more waste collection and social support programs, getting out of the “small commercial waste collection” business, re-examining the city’s business development model. And perhaps there are some moves Mr. Ford could undertake without alienating his core supporters, such as eviscerating arts funding or slashing money for “bicycle infrastructure management.”

But even that won’t come close to plugging the hole. All signs point to a pretty significant tax hike coming down the pipe. Budget chief Mike Del Grande noted Monday that Torontonians pay relatively low tax and receive pretty good services. That’s heresy to the many Ford voters who believe we’re both overtaxed and underserved — and who believe Mr. Ford promised to cut their taxes, even though he didn’t.

Maybe these voters can be forgiven for being confused, considering Mr. Ford used to insist the city had no revenue problem. But that door fell off the burned-out Dodge ages ago. We need more money, and to spend less of it, and we need to figure out how to get it and what to cut — all more or less immediately.

“I think it’s only fair that we wait until [the consultants] finish doing their job,” Mr. Ford told reporters on Tuesday. “Let’s wait till it’s all complete and I think you’ll see more than $10- to $15-million in savings.”

But it won’t be $150- or $200-million, let alone $700-million. The gravy-train, no-service-cuts, plenty-of-revenue fantasy is kaput. As soon as that last KPMG installment lands, if not sooner, Mayor Ford needs to start talking frankly about his Plan B.